asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the number of allottees in County Kildare, who are seven years or over in possession of Land Commission holdings, which have not yet been vested in them.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Kildare Allottees.
The number of allottees of the Land Commission in County Kildare who are in possession of their parcels of untenanted land for seven years or over but have not yet had their parcels vested in them is approximately 1,650.
asked the Minister for Lands if he will state (a) the date on which the Land Commission acquired the estate of Cane, Loughlinstown and Ballyoulster, Celbridge; (b) the total cost of such acquisition, development, etc; (c) the names of the allottees and the date on which they entered into possession; (d) the names of the allottees who received grants for building purposes and the amount of each such grant; (e) the names of allottees whose holdings are at present vested in them.
asked the Minister for Lands if he will state (a) whether the Land Commission sanctioned the sale of an allotment dwelling-house and out-offices held by Michael O'Neill on the Cane Estate, Loughlinstown and Ballyoulster, Celbridge, County Kildare; (b) the cost of all of the several provisions made by the Land Commission for Mr. O'Neill; (c) the amount realised by the sale of the property; (d) whether any conditions were attached to the sanction by the Land Commission to the sale of the property; and if such sanction was in accordance with Land Commission policy.
asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the allotment and dwelling-house of Mr. O'Sullivan on the Cane Estate, Loughlinstown, and Ballyoulster, Celbridge, was vested in him when no other allottee on the estate was similarly vested; and, if so, why Mr. O'Sullivan received preferential treatment, and whether he still retains possession of the holding.
I propose to take together the Deputy's three questions relative to the Cane Estate. This estate was acquired by the Land Commission in two portions—the first on 13/5/1932 and the second on 1/2/1935 for a total purchase price of £5,650. Approximately £2,018 (of which £1,180 was by way of free grant) was devoted to development, etc. The lands on the estate were divided among 16 allottees on varying dates—four on 13th May, 1932, 11 on 11th March, 1935, and one on 1st October, 1935. The parcels of four of the allottees have been already vested in them. It is not the practice of the Land Commission to publish particulars of individual allotments.
The Land Commission sanctioned the sale of the parcel of Michael O'Neill (who had been in possession for nine years) subject to their approval of the purchaser and to the refund by the allottee of the sum of £150 expended by the Land Commission on buildings on the parcel by way of free grant. The amount realised by the sale of the parcel is a matter between vendor and purchaser.
In Mr. O'Sullivan's case, he had been in occupation of his allotment for over eight years and, ordinarily, the lands would have been vested in him in that period. He applied to the Land Commission for vesting to enable him to raise credit for the improvement of the holding and the Land Commission, as they frequently do in such circumstances, arranged to have vesting completed. It is understood that he has since disposed of the parcel, but this is not a matter within the control of the Land Commission.
Is it in accordance with the policy of the Land Commission to permit allottees to cash in on valuable gifts which they got from the State, to the amount of £2,800 and £2,400?
I pointed out that the procedure in the cases of Messrs. O'Neill and O'Sullivan was carried out according to the usual Land Commission policy.
Then it is the policy of the Land Commission to permit allottees to cash in on allotments that were provided for them for the specific purpose of farming the land and living on it?
I did not say that and I do not admit it. The Land Commission must consider all the circumstances of each case.
What particular circumstances were there in this case?
I have given them in the answer.
I have put down a question in an effort to elucidate the problems which are worrying a number of people down in Kildare, because they cannot understand why the State should provide a substantial piece of property for an individual and then permit that individual to cash in on it and put the money in his pocket. Is that the policy of the Land Commission?
The Land Commission are confronted with multifarious problems in regard to the division and acquisition of land. It is very difficult for me to give the Deputy any more facts, without exposing certain private information which it would be unfair to expose here. I do not wish to go into matters which would affect the interests of private individuals and which do not affect Land Commission policy.
I understand that. Will the Minister then say why the allotments of four tenants were vested in them and why the other 12 remain unvested?
There are about 45,000 of these allottees throughout the country who await revesting, and, during the past few years, it was very difficult to carry on with revesting. Last year the Land Commission set up a special revesting section and increased substantially the number of cases revested. This year we have doubled the number of revesting cases.
Surely the Land Commission deal with these matters on an estate basis and not on the basis of individual tenants. Why was the whole estate not vested in the tenants?
It may not always be possible to do that.
I want to know why preferential treatment was given to four tenants and the interests of the other tenants ignored?
These people, through their solicitors, made application to the Land Commission for vesting or for permission to purchase and the Land Commission, having considered all the circumstances of each case, acted as they did act.
Then, is the situation this, that the Land Commission vested in the case of four, and only for four, ignoring the interests of 12, and afterwards permitted two of the four to cash in on a State gift to the tune of £2,800 and £2,400?
Not only had they to ignore 12 cases, but they have had to ignore the case of 45,000 allottees.
Is the procedure then that the Land Commission vests two or three tenants on an estate and then goes to another estate? Surely the Minister does not contend that that is the normal procedure of the Land Commission?
Surely we are not expected to take each case, as the Deputy wishes.
Each estate.
The Land Commission takes them in regular rotation and deals with them on that basis.
You did not deal with this case on the basis of regular rotation.
The boys got their money in any case and that is what mattered.